Perfect outside the indicative
dalmatia at eburg.com
dalmatia at eburg.com
Sat Jun 6 10:51:55 EDT 1998
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> I've continued thinking about the relationship between the past event and
> the current state in the perfect. The two explanations I'm most familiar
> with are:
>
> 1. Mari Olsen's suggestion that the tense of the perfect is present,
> referring to the current state, and the aspect is perfective, referring to
> the complete event.
>
> 2. Fanning's suggestion that the perfect combines stative Aktionsart with
> imperfective aspect.
>
> I think that clear thinking about the perfect always requires attention to
> what it might say about a past event and what it might say about the
> current state. Since tense disappears outside the indicative, and aspect
> remains, I thought I'd see how non-indicative perfects relate to the past
> event and the current state.
>
> I chose to explore examples that Robertson had classified as referring to
> past events or current states. He says these examples represent states:
>
> John 4:6 hO OUN IHSOUS *KEKOPIAKWS* EK THS hODOIPORIAS EKAQEZETO hOUTWS
> EPI TH PHGH
> John 4:6 Now Jesus, *having been wearied* from the journey, sat thus upon
> the well.
>
> I do not mean to imply that "having been wearied" is a great translation
> into English, but it is the most woodenly literal translation of a perfect
> participle that I could find, so I thought I would inflict it on yall.
> Although Robertson uses this as an example that refers to the current state
> - Jesus is tired - the perfect in this example doesnt work without
> reference to a past event, tiring himself out from the journey. Suppose I
> left out the prepositional phrase EK THS hODOIPORIAS ("from the journey") -
> my guess is that the result still implies a past event:
>
> hO OUN IHSOUS *KEKOPIAKWS* EKAQEZETO hOUTWS EPI TH PHGH
> Now Jesus, *having worn himself out*, sat thus upon the well.
>
> Im surprised that Robertson uses this as an example:
>
> Luke 4:16 KAI EISHLQEN KATA *TO* *EIWQOS* AUTW
> Luke 4:16 and he went in according to the *having-been-accustomed* of him
>
> Im not sure that I want to read must aspect into this articular participle
> - doesnt this just mean "according to his custom"? Even if we read this
> with significant verbal force, though, the past ongoing custom is as much a
> part of the meaning as the current custom, so both past event and current
> state are intact.
>
> Robertson suggests that the following two verses refer to past events, not
> on the resulting state:
>
> Matt 25:24 PROSELQWN DE KAI hO TO hEN TALANTON *EILHFWS*
> Matt 25:24 Then the one who *has received* the one talent came up
>
> The past perfect "had received" feels more natural in English here, but
> nevertheless, the person is in the state of having received the one talent,
> which is why he is now held accountable. It seems to me that the current
> resulting state is very much in focus!
>
> Heres the last example Im looking at in this message:
>
> John 18:18 EISTHKEISAN DE hOI DOULOI KAI hOI hUPHRETAI ANQRAKIAN
> *PEPOIHKOTES*, hOTI YUCOS HN
> John 18:18 now the servants and the police were standing around *having
> made* a fire, for it was cold.
>
> Again, the current state may be the most relevant detail - that there was a
> fire - but to me, the verb also clearly implies the past event of making
> the fire.
>
> My tentative conclusion: both the past event and the current state are
> retained in non-indicative use of the perfect. In participles, at least,
> the force of the perfect itself is virtually unchanged from its force in
> the indicative. Therefore, neither the relationship to the past event or
> the current state is really a tense, since absolute time exists only in the
> indicative. Im inclined to think we have two true aspects here.
>
> Comments?
The only way I have been able to make sense of this issue is to see
the Greek perfect as 'conclusive', because it talks about an action
that is concluded. [Likewise the Greek present is 'progressive'
because it talks about an action that is in progress, and the aorist
is inceptive because it talks about an action that has begun.]
Actions begin, progress, and conclude, and the Greek seems to have a
verb form for each of these 'aspects' of an action ~ The aorist, the
'progressive' system of verbs, and the 'perfective' system of verbs.
Stepping outside the indicative in the perfect then would simply
denote action that is [in the present] concluded. In each of your
examples, this easily makes sense ~ The 'tiring' of Jesus is a
concluded action in the present; His 'accustoming' is a concluded
action in the present, as is the making of a fire, and the receiving
of one talent.
If the perfect is simply the present conclusion of an event, does its
grammatic comprehensibility simplify? It sure would seem to...
George Blaisdell
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list